Discussions
The Ugly Underbelly of Link Exchange Threads
Posted by MadameX • 8/10/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Some time ago, I responded to a link exchange thread by pointing out the reasons that it was probably not a helpful proposal and might even be harmful. (I've done that several times and I've intentionally let some time pass so as not to single out the particular thread or poster)
Not long after my initial response, I received a private message from the original poster. That message laid out some solid credentials and indicated that s/he "knew perfectly well how Google worked". The thing is, that message didn't challenge my statements at all--it basically said that I wasn't telling him/her anything new.
It really disturbed me because previously I'd thought that link exchange schemes were cooked up my novices and other novices were sucked in, and everyone involved was operating in the good faith (though likely erroneous) belief that they'd all benefit themselves and each other.
This response made it clear to me that in at least one case, the person starting the thread wasn't a novice at all, but a person with some SEO knowledge and experience who knew the hazards of link exchanges and was nonetheless touting his/her link exchange scheme to beginners as a surefire road to success. Why, I'm not sure.
Again, the response I received did NOT question any of the reasons I'd raised in my post about why link exchanges could be dangerous--it said, in essence, "I have an SEO background and I know all that." Yet, s/he was promising newer bloggers results. I'm still not entirely sure what to make of it, but it left me with an even more troubling view of those threads.
User Comments
-
Thank you for sharing. Will others listen?
By the way, have you posted a blog piece on the problematic aspects of link exchanges? If so, please do share the link. I would like to learn more. -
I would have expected those asking for these exchanges to be novices as well. Now I'm not just annoyed, I'm angry. -
I have done one link exchange and she has me listed under Malaysian Blogs KOOL! (i'm in the usa)
Seems that most of the people who start the exchange are the ones getting the most traffic lol. -
Everyone who has been blogging for some time thinks they have a SEO background.-
But Tiffany's point is that the person who contacted her did not contradict her, that is, that the person appeared actually to have a clue.
-
did not contradict Tiffany = has a clue
I like it.
-
-
Madame X what is a SEO, please?-
-
Thank you stoneman I will go check this out. I appreciate the education.
-
-
This would explain a bit why-- when I'd once asked folks the benefit of participating in things like link exchanges and comment-for-comment were (for those who continued to participate)-- no one responded to that specific aspect.
Seems when topics are brought up like that, where we could all at least come to understand each other's views, the pro-link-for-link, etc., camp gets strangely quiet.-
Good point. Or sometimes I've been criticized for such questions, but usually on different grounds.
-
-
Ok, I am sounding really Dumb now, but what do you mean by Link Exchanging? What categorizes as link exchanging that the original poster of this discussion was talking about?
I would like to know so I will be sure I'm not doing anything wrong by offering stumbles and reviews. I'm not asking for anything in return.-
"Ok, I am sounding really Dumb now, but what do you mean by Link Exchanging? What categorizes as link exchanging that the original poster of this discussion was talking about?"
You link to me, I'll link to you. You can substitute digg/stumble/technorati fave/visit and comment/ etc. as the same sort of spamming. -
People do it, because these links become backlinks: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backlinks
Good backlinks can increase your page rank with Google (and your "authority" at Technorati), but bad backlinks, like these 1:1 things, catch Google's attention and can detract from your blog's value.
At least that's what I've managed to piece together in these forums during the past couple months. Maybe someone provide more information. -
With very few exceptions ( a recent post, apatheticlemming.blogspot.com/2007/08/another-descendant-of-chain-letter.ht... is one), I am very careful about links.
I have exchanged links, when the page or site at the other end and my page had related content. That, from legitimate discussions that I've read, may help search engine ranking, and are a service to visitors at both pages.
-
-
Ah, but wanting to know something is never dumb. :-) Link exchanges in this context are folks who agree with a huge list of others to all exchange web links, indiscriminately. This however doesn't help at all with the Search Engines. Google, for instance, can tell if you've traded links with another site and it doesn't count to help your rank. Google also likes sites to provide links to other sites in a related genre. So what initially seems effective is actually harming anyone looking to get decently ranked by Google in the long run.
The reason people may choose to get others to do this is they have a site that they don't intend to have any longevity, but which they wish to have lots of meaningless traffic to-- for whatever reason.
I hope this helps!-
Bingo
-
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like Tiffany is suggesting that this person who contacted her, saying a) she understood the SEO implications of link exchange and b) did not counter anything that Tiffany said, was covertly undermining the efforts of naive newbies by appearing to promote link exchange among them.
Tiffany, is that your message?-
I'd agree with this... there is a group of SEOs that think SEO is about tanking their competitors. -
BNS, I don't think it was quite that malicious, but the best assessment I can make is that the person had found some way to benefit his/her own blog, at least in the short term, through the link exchange, and was willing to mislead the novices in order to reap those benefits. But that's really just an educated guess. The only thing I know for sure is that the person was very enthusiastically promoting the value of a link exchange and then privately seemed to be conceding that my concerns were valid and that s/he had already been aware of those issues (and not chosen to share them in the thread "selling" the exchange)
-
A finely nuanced answer from someone with legal training. But it amounts to about what Bobbie said.
-
you know what they say.. never argue with a lawyer.
-
-
OK... here's another newbie question:
Does Google frown upon large blogroll
lists of links??-
Here's my guess: the size of the blogroll doesn't matter, but the relevance of the blogs might. But what's relevance? Well, even if they are not about the same subject as your blog, they should have more meaning than simply that you've linked to each other.
-
-
Google suggests you should not have more than 100 links on one page. Also, it's not good to have a huge blogroll on your side bar because every page counts as a link to the other blog and you lose Google PageRank.-
Could you please explain what you mean by this last bit? ". . . because every page counts as a link to the other blog and you lose Google PageRank." Thank you!
-
Yes, if you could point to where Google "suggests" that, it would be greatly appreciated. I'm not disputing it, I've simply never seen it...and it's very unusual for Google to speak in absolute numbers like that.
-
It could also be relevant to one of my blogs, which is all about links.
-
Could be relevant to all of your blogs, Mark, since they're all linked together.
-
-
I'm willing to say with confidence that Google has no opinion one way or the other about an individual blogroll.-
"I'm willing to say with confidence" Could you please translate that phrase? Akishore writes "Google suggests", which I'm hoping means they picked this up from Google directly. It would be nice to get a source from them. And from you too. And I'm not talking about opinion from a third party. What does Google have to say on its own pages?
-
-
How come people get so bent out of shape over link exchanges in the first place?
It's a blogging tradition and if people cannot think beyond the scope of link exchange why should we care?
Why do people still use Blogger when the critics say other platforms are better?
Beyond the little bubble of blog catalog link exchanges are happening people!
Link exchange is good promotion.
While were on the subject: Why do people do the things they do?-
Well, the caring comes in through the initial thread post-- where it's fairly clear that newbies to blogging who are excited about the prospect about a lot of links and potential traffic may be being lured in with these ideas, only to have the possibilities of achieving a decent Google rank ripped away from them off the bat.
If BlogCatalog is going to be a place where bloggers help other bloggers, and discuss techniques, this is an important point for discussion. -
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't care a bit about link exchanges among people with equal knowledge. I do care when I see people who are new and eager being misled into doing things that might hurt their blogs in the long run without adequate information to make educated decisions.
If someone understands the risks and the likely complete lack of value and decides to go ahead with a link exchange anyway, that's no one else's business.
Lies bother me in whatever context they arise. -
Tradition is sometimes a good argument. I don't see how it applies here though.
-
I say tradition because link exchanges have been occuring. Most new bloggers do link exchanges because old bloggers did link exchanges and probably still do link exchanges.
-
I understand the tradition, but Google has not been around as long as that tradition and it plays by different (and changing) rules. And Google is important enough to the life of a blog that bloggers need to pay attention.
-
So you are going on the basis that we should be relying on Google to get traffic?
-
Not exclusively. But it's a factor. Still, I like your question. I hope more people weigh in.
-
Despite the name "Google" they play a very small factor. Ironic isn't it?
Funny how I don't play Googles game but keep buying their stock. -
I'm going on the basis that people should have a fair chance to understand the ramifications of their choices before they're encouraged to make them.
How important Google is to bloggers in view of the proliferation of social networking and such is another question, and a valid one, but considering that the vast majority of link exchange proposals SAY their purpose is to improve page rank and SERPs, that's a bit outside the scope of this discussion. -
And in case anyone else had no idea what SERPs meant, here's Wikipedia to the rescue: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_results_page
-
-
Stoneman, is your intent to find yourself on Google's page one search results for a given subject you blog about?
-
Not necessarily, but I want people to find me if my stuff is relevant.
-
-
So this isn't really about link exchanges is it?
If people are not smart enough to do the research to challenge link exchanges or anything else in the world....I mean shoot. What can I say?-
Well, if you're the kind of person whose ethical code makes it just fine to take advantage of people with lesser knowledge just because they had the poor sense to rely on your word, then I guess you say, "Bargain! More suckers to feed off!"
I simply don't share your view.
-
-
I find being ethical has too many limitations and does more harm than good. Physics has already proven there is no such thing as good or bad.
So link exchanges are a-okay in my universe.
Oh wait. I forgot there is no such thing as good or harm. Scratch that.-
"I find being ethical has too many limitations and does more harm than good."
I beg your pardon?? -
Jpearce writes, "I find being ethical has too many limitations and does more harm than good."
With that kind of attitude, I guess there really is nothing for me to say. Unless you want to describe specific examples of said limitations and the kinds of harm they can cause. -
I really, really want to quote jpearce on my tumblelog. But it wouldn't be ethical.
-
Wow... Well... I guess it's good to be forewarned...
-
jpearce, you're entitled to your...perspective. However, please understand that from my perspective, it invalidates your opinions on anything else. If ethics are not an issue for you, then of course this discussion makes no sense to you. I'm a little unclear on why you've chosen to invest so much time in it?
-
"being ethical has too many limitations and does more harm than good"
Interesting.
A belief I've encountered before, and cannot agree with.
Thank you for the warning.
-
-
Is it ethical to use house cleaning products that were tested on animals?
People still clean despite knowing the process that is involved in making the product.
People are going to link exchange no matter what anyone thinks or tells them or if they read differently.-
The "everybody's doing it" argument.
And, at first glance, moral equivalence.
Interesting.
-
-
-
Why didn't someone post this before? You rock.
But where is the part that says link exchanges are bad? It mentions spammers and bad neighborhoods.... -
Thanks for the links. Much good info.
-
"Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank"
That comes right before the part to which you refer. Second link that metaDad gave us. -
Why didn't someone post this before? Maybe they were borrowing your philosophy from just a few posts ago, jpearce: "If people are not smart enough to do the research to challenge link exchanges or anything else in the world....I mean shoot. What can I say?"
-
"Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank"
I question this. For sure.
-
-
good discuss, a little feisty, but good. I learned something today.
-
Beyond the ethical debate, the practice is counterproductive.
But since I've already tried reasoning in the past with the economic argument, here it is in plainer terms:
You will ultimately play yourself. -
So who's surprised to see me in this thread?
Link exchanging is not automatically a bad or dangerous thing. And the simple fact is that IF Google doesn't like reciprocal links, the boys in Menlo make some kind of exception for sites that are obviously blogs. more to the point though is that Google doesn't like reciprocal **irrelevant** links that are intended to serve no function other than to pad a backlink count.
They **expect** sites that are closely related to one another semantically to link to each other. This is how semantic networks are formed.
The problem with link to me and I'll link to you threads is that
1) There is not content vetting, and thus no reason to link to each other unless it is to gain an irrelevant backlink.
2) There is no quality vetting. Sorry is I hurt any feelings but the vast majority of people attracted to these shotgun approach link schemes are not producing quality content on their blogs. If you **are** attracted and your blog **is** of a good quality, please consider yourself the exception, but understand that the exception does not disprove the rule.
3) Reciprocity is chancy and fleeting. People sign up for dozens of these things and then get a new theme next week and "forget" to add the links back in. Some are more blatant. And they know that with the high percentage of new comers in these things, many of those previously reciprocated links will become one way inbounds because these people won't check and will leave their links up (This is why your "SEO" guy was probably involved).
Long story short, link exchanges, done properly can be helpful to your blog. But link exchanges through these kinds of threads are very rarely done properly. Most cases they won't really hurt you, but there are a dozen things you could have done instead that would have actually helped you, so you lost that.-
Dane, I don't think that anyone has ever suggested that sites/blogs with related content shouldn't be linking to each other. You know (as you indicate above) that that isn't what we're discussing here.
-
Yes I do. But it remains that this is exactly what is happening in these link me threads. Go look in any one of them and see the blogs that are linking to each other. There is no consideration given to relevancy. And it is "The Ugly Underbelly of **Link Exchange Threads**" that we are indeed discussing if we take the thread starter at her word.
P.S. I'm actually agreeing with you, that this is a problem with these threads. This is a big part of what's bad about them.
If they were to start a thread that said "Lets trade links on out photography blogs", it might be a different thing. -
Thanks for the helpful input, Dane. Basically you're saying that Google expects things to mirror real life, that is, real intellectual, social, and cultural connections. That's kind of what the semantic web is supposed to be about, right? And amateurish attempts to game the system just muck everything up, because the connections are completely random, and of such quality as to practically guarantee no serendipitous new knowledge from such randomness. Can I get away with such a simplification? Any links for further reading you want to recommend?
-
I agree entirely, Dane, that that would be a different issue altogether--especially if the participants were to use some discernment in the quality of the blogs they chose to exchange links with.
(For the record, I feel pretty strongly about the accuracy of the post that started this thread, since I wrote it)
Mark--I think your simplification is excellent. It mirrors very closely what representatives from Google and Yahoo, along with the real professionals in the SEO business say over and over again...in just as simple terms. -
www.hirank.com/semantic-indexing-project/
www.cs.utk.edu/~lsi/
lsa.colorado.edu/
lsa.colorado.edu/papers/dp1.LSAintro.pdf
This ain't light bedtime reading though. -
"(For the record, I feel pretty strongly about the accuracy of the post that started this thread, since I wrote it)"
I know, it's a little device I use sometimes. But, yes that's the whole thing. These threads are perfect examples of how NOT to do reciprocal linking, unless you lack ethics and know how to play the statistics in taking the people you are bringing in to the cleaners, as it were.
This is why I like the fish analogy, because there are two kinds of people in those threads, the prey and the predator, and in an almost funny if it weren't so sad twist, it's often the prey that start the things. -
That's a good analysis, Dane, and exactly the reason I started the thread--I was surprised to learn about the predators in that context...I'd honestly thought up until that point that those threads were largely born of ignorance.
-
-
P.S. The people who "know perfectly well how Google worked" ain't hanging out in forums discussing reciprocal links.
If you really just flat out know Google cold, you either work in Menlo and you ain't talking, or you are so busy raking in cash you don't have time for forum chats and one by one link exchanges.-
Depends on your definition of "know perfectly well", I think. The response I received was regarding a specific issue, and the level of knowledge it conveyed was certainly above that of the average newish visitor to BC who is likely to jump into a link exchange. I agree that a real professional has better things to do than chase links from new bloggers, but there's a pretty wide range of people who know enough to manipulate others in between "brand new blogger" and "too busy raking in cash to come to a forum".
-
Medium fish looking to eat small and tiny fish, while the big fish are off doing their own thing.
-
VERY accurate picture. Dane might suggest, and he might be right, that they're not even really medium fish so much as slightly larger small fish, but they're still a threat to the guppies.
-
The analogy appeals to me quite a bit actually.
-
-
I hope this is in keeping with this thread, i was reading earlier today, a post Darren R. (problogger dude) wrote back in 2005, on SEO, and he stated in it on the importance of link relevancy. That it is quite important who you link to, that it should make sense, and be relevant to ones niche/theme/subject, etc.
Now i have a question, i started a BC Friends Page over at my Groovy Veg blog, and am now starting to feel like this is seriously hurting me, as most if not all of those links are completely irrelevant to my niche.
What do you guys think of this? -
Make sure the page is pretty well segregated from the rest of the blog. Only give it one "real" link and make any other links to it through jscript or nofollows and you should be okay, assuming you're staying on message with the rest of the blog.
-
Hi---Dane:
Yes, the page is seperate. Hmmn i didn't think of the nofollow, do you know if this is default with wordpress? Or do i have to put it in there? -
Well, from your actual list_pages() function, no. But what you can do is specifically exclude that page from listing and then add the link back in hard coded in your theme with a nofollow.
That would be a cool plugin though... to let you select pages to be nofollowed.-
Maybe you can create the plug-in, if you know about that stuff. (go for it)
I'm not at all techy, so some of what you said was Chinese to me, but i will ask around about it. Thx, Dane!
-
-
Hey Folks,
For me, to xchange or not to xchange depends solely on 2 factors.
1) Does the 2 sites (typically blogs) have relevant content?
2) Does the linking help the readers of both sites?
I don't think any site can cover all relevant topics in any niche. There is always alternative perspectives or views. Link xchange offers a vehicle to xchange content.
Now back to the reason this thread was started for, blind link exchange such as viral links doesn't care about relevancy hence, in my opinion not really worth a cent to my readers. Building backlinks are important, we cannot discount that. But keeping the big picture in sight is more important then building worthless backlinks.
If you understand that backlinks are a way to get traffic, having a link to relevant content means you get targeted traffic. Having a link to unrelated content gets you junk traffic. I would opt for 10 good relevant backlinks then 100 unrelated backlinks.
Think about it.
Oh and if you focus on writing good content, you WILL get backlinks even if you don't ask for it. And that is one way unconditional backlinks, worth much much more than 100 link exchanges.
My 2 cts.
Cheers
Karen-
"Oh and if you focus on writing good content, you WILL get backlinks even if you don't ask for it. And that is one way unconditional backlinks, worth much much more than 100 link exchanges."
And that is worth repeating.
Though laying out a few pointers to that great content helps jump the process a little too. -
Hey Dane,
Sure
To me, great contents means anything that is worth reading to your readers. It helps if your blog has a central theme or niche. Such as my blog, it's focus is on self improvement using Law of Attraction (which is a grand way of saying stay positive :P).
So we write articles, share experience/stories, methods of self improvement, etc on our blogs. Reading related blogs helps a lot too. You can also write about a topic that has been around for ages but in your unique perspective. Try it. Your readers are there because they love your unique perspective.
Cheers
Karen
-
-
Hey Drafter,
Keep that button up there. It is the method of getting the link that is an issue here, not the media. Technorati is a cool site to promote your blog so don't discount it. If you have great content and your readers love it, they will vote for you on technorati if they have an account there. Since technorati expires links after 180 days, only top blog with great content will make it to the top of the chart.
Cheers
Karen -
From the Contrarian standpoint
Most inbound have some value, very few will generate any appreciable negative cost. Outbound links from your site can be an issue if you are trying to develop a tightly themed blog, to rank for competitive phrases. If you cover a wide range of topics in your blog it is open to debate the extent to which linking to diverse sites would effect your overall search engine positioning. In any case outbound links will have the effect of diluting your internal linking structure.
For the purposes of search engines I have seen nothing that indicates quality = interesting, educational, or well written.
As for quality content getting natural backlinks it is much more difficult in most fields then most writers on the topic disclose. Link baiting aside, if you are writing outside of webmaster related fields, a very small percentage of your natural readership will be in a position to provide you with a link, they do not have websites to link from. Those webmasters that do happen to visit your site, most will avoid outbound links on their site's for several legitimate reasons. Particularly if they are involved in sales.-
Your first point has been true, but is less true today than it was six month ago and will be less true still in yet another six months. This is the trend, you can follow behind it or you can get in front of it, but either way it's the ride you are on.
As to the third point I would submit that people having difficulties getting back links in niche markets are focusing their efforts too much on people who are not blogging. A traditional niche webmaster is reluctant with links, sure, but a blogger in the same market will not be. Leave some valuable comments on their blog. Make them into a conversation. You will get links, and visits.
And if that blogger has a readership, those links are worth even more than plain old back links.
Is it more difficult to get real back links based on quality content and active community participation? Absolutely. But it's also easier to throw your trash in a corner of your living room than to take it out to the curb. In either case the extra effort pays for itself.
-
-
OK, but that gets complicated in particular cases, doesn't it? My blog targeted to homeschoolers. Most of the people I am linked to link to me. These are not formal link exchanges. We have just been chatting together on the internet for three years. It is natural that there is going to be some heavy interlinking within certain niches.
I guess I don't care all that much about SEO, anyway.-
"It is natural that there is going to be some heavy interlinking within certain niches."
The boys in Menlo spend gobs of really high priced time learning to detect the difference between natural and artificial. They are looking for the natural, and that doesn't mean heavily or sparsely. It means different things in different cases.
A bunch of Home School bloggers having tightly integrated discussions across blogs with lots of interlinking looks nothing like a bunch of random bloggers linking for PR. Not in terms of search math nor in terms of reading continuity.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
